- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 06:34:33 +0000 (UTC)
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > > > I have no idea which section that was, nor which RFC that is (the URI > > is now dead). Is there an updated link? > > The section is now 3.17.1.1. Script languages. (The section numbering in > the email you quoted is from the 2006-02-24 revision of the spec.) > > The linked draft has become http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4329 Ah, indeed, that would be a good place to reference that. Noted. > > > 2.20.1. When I read this, I had trouble organizing (in my mind) what > > > I was reading because I had no prior understanding of where the spec > > > was going. Up to this point, I had had prior hypotheses that were > > > confirmed or disconfirmed by the spec. This section would be a lot > > > easier to read if it had an introductionary paragraph stating the > > > relationship of rendering, the DOM, the data model object and data > > > submission. (Is the DOM being rendered or is a replaced widget > > > element being rendered? Is it stylable? Is the data model reflected > > > back to the DOM? What's the expected way of serializing the data > > > model and sending it back to the server?) > > > > I don't know which section this is talking about. > > It was about <datagrid>. > > > Is it better now? > > I think the non-normative intro section still doesn't sufficiently cover > the relationship to the DOM and the CSS frame tree. The relationship to CSS will all be in the rendering section. I guess I don't really know what you think is needed in the intro section, I'm probably too close to it. Could you write some questions that you think an intro section should answer? > It wasn't clear to me why the spec specified datagrid as part of > required UA functionality instead of e.g. Google shipping an Open Source > JavaScript library that implements the whole thing using existing stuff > available in browsers. Is this about particular native widgets? About > performance? Both of those, but also simply semantics (spelt "accessibility" for political correctness reasons). > I thought there might be a requirement that the content made sense as a > data model. I think that would be excessive. It might be a good idea, though. > > Do you think it should be further restricted? > > Not necessary, I guess. Ok. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2007 23:34:33 UTC